Language-Arts Standards Spur Mixed Reviews

Don't expect the national standards being written for
English-language arts to look anything like the other subject-matter
standards that have come before them. And don't expect them to spell
out what students should know and be able to do.

But given the talk here among language-arts professionals, it's safe
to expect that the voluntary standards will not be accepted
quietly.

At one time, the National Council of Teachers of English had
intended to unveil the long-anticipated document here last week at its
annual conference. But the NCTE and its partner in the standards
venture, the International Reading Association, instead used the
occasion to solicit more feedback on a project already three years in
the making.

What they got were opinions ranging from wholehearted approval to
downright dismay. One teacher may have summed up the range of responses
in his observation that there was beauty in one standard and ambiguity
in another.

Looking outside the profession, though, one educator from Nebraska
said the draft standards were likely to leave parents, policymakers,
and the public with the impression that English-language-arts educators
are "unable to say what they mean."

Nonetheless, officials from the English teachers' group and the
reading association said they believe that the final version can be
ready for the public by March, but they are willing to wait. "I would
rather take a couple of extra weeks and get it right," Alan E.
Farstrup, the executive director of the IRA, said.

No Quotes, Please

English-language arts, the bedrock of precollegiate education, is
among the last of the subject-matter groups still to be working on
national standards. The science standards are due out next month, and
the economics standards are due out late next spring.

The standards project's belated status stems in part from running
afoul of the U.S. Department of Education. Midway through the journey,
the department, citing lack of specificity among other concerns, pulled
the project's funding.

But the IRA and the NCTE forged ahead, committing $1 million of
their own money to complete the task.

Along the way, numerous drafts have been produced. In recent weeks,
the executive boards of both organizations sent a version completed
last month back to the drawing boards for revisions, although officials
from both groups said that internal responses, as well as those from
the field, were generally favorable.

Mr. Farstrup said more attention needs to be given to developmental
reading and to literature as a discipline. Moreover, he said, reviewers
suggested that the document frankly discuss the controversies that have
raged within language arts, including the development of skills in
conventional forms of English.

Now, Mr. Farstrup said, the goal is to revise the standards so that
they reflect the most-current thinking about the discipline, yet to do
so in a way that is uncomplicated but not simplistic.

A second document, which was prepared earlier this month in response
to the critiques, was being passed around the meeting here. But
organization officials said the final product would more likely
resemble last month's version than the most-recent document.

Unlike the other standards-setting groups, English-language-arts
officials will not allow any part of their draft documents to be
published.

"It is not fair to quote from a document that has not been
approved," said Miriam T. Chaplin, an education professor at Rutgers
University who completed her term as NCTE president last
week.

Revising the Language

With the possible exception of the health standards, the others that
have been released to date set out clear guidelines showing the content
that students in grades 4, 8, and 12 should be expected to master.
Neither of the English-language-arts papers circulating here do that.
There is no canon; there are no benchmarks.

"There was a conscious decision that we didn't want our document to
be prescriptive," Ms. Chaplin said.

The October version lists 11 standards that speak in broad terms of
student-learning processes. One deals with literature, and one with
writing. One addresses basic skills; several deal with diversity
issues.

The more recent set is not as focused. In place of what students
should learn, that version emphasizes why students should learn
something and how well. It also would elevate media viewing and visual
representation to the same status as the more traditional language arts
of reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

"What it leaves out is the what," said John S. Mayher, an author of
the latest draft. "What it leaves out is the specificity. It doesn't
tell you to teach Hamlet. It doesn't even tell you to teach
grammar," Mr. Mayher, a professor of English education at New York
University, said.

Educators at the conference tended to favor the October draft.

"They've done a good job up to this point, but it needs to be
fine-tuned," said Maureen McSherry, a high school English department
head from Dalton, Ill.

A number of conferees, however, said they were gravely concerned
about the most-recent draft.

"The words need to be what we on the East Coast call 7-11 language,"
a teacher from Rhode Island said, referring to the convenience-store
chain. "The language has to be clear even for English teachers," he
said. "These are the kinds of things we have to explain to others. Why
give us one more lesson to teach?"

Range of Reaction

From a state department point of view, one official from the
Midwest, who asked that he not be identified, said: "This would not
fly. I can't take these to my public. I wouldn't know how to answer
their questions."

But a teacher from Ohio said she saw no problem with the latest
version. And another teacher called the list of 11 standards in the
earlier version meaningless. Unlike the November draft, she said, "It
doesn't inspire me."

Some of the participants also warned of "red flags." They cited
standards in the October version that address diversity, students who
are not native English speakers, and the use of language to interpret
text and investigate issues.

Several of the standards "contain language that is offensive [to
large portions of the public], and they are going to reject it right
out of hand," cautioned Marcia R. Story, a high school teacher in Las
Vegas.

To Holly Stein, though, the issue boiled down to interpretation. "I
could interpret them to mean I'm doing all of them," said the high
school teacher from Washington state. "They need a little more
specificity for me."

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.